I'm not speculating either way but I've seen that picture many times and it actually illustrates a fairly believable timeline. The first image and the last are 5 years apart and it shows a steady growth between all years. The most dramatic seems to be from 04 to 06 but that's two years between images. I'm not saying it means anything either way but to me it doesn't really prove he was or wasn't on anything.

DancingDoll

8/8/12 7:03:44PM

Wow, he looks so much better in the 2004-2005 shot than he does now. That looks like a more natural body type (ripped lean muscle) for an athlete. Has he bulked up something like 40lbs of muscle since then? Yikes.